Vice President Fails To Demand An FBI Investigation After His Private Email Account Is Hacked
from the investigations-are-for-other-people dept
I can only assume Mike Pence is so self-absorbed he's literally incapable of recognizing his own hypocrisy. Either that or he's completely shameless.
After engaging in a presidential campaign where much was made of Hillary Clinton's private email address/server, Pence went to court to prevent his AOL emails from being released to public records requesters.
I can only assume Pence is now welcoming an FBI investigation into his use of an AOL account.
Clinton routed sensitive documents through an insecure personal server. Pence is doing the same. While Clinton was advised against setting up her own personal email server, it's likely Pence has had an AOL account for a long, long, long time. Sure, there's a difference between taking matters into your own hands and leaving your email security up to a third party, but the end result is no different: both were using private accounts to handle government business -- business that included the classified and sensitive information.
The main difference here is we know Pence's email account has been hacked. There were attempts made on Clinton's email server, but nothing out there suggests any of those attacks were successful. Considering Pence's earlier adamance about Clinton's careless email habits, it's probably time to invite the FBI to take a look at his careless handling of sensitive documents.
Emails released to IndyStar in response to a public records request show Pence communicated via his personal AOL account with top advisers on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe. In one email, Pence’s top state homeland security adviser relayed an update from the FBI regarding the arrests of several men on federal terror-related charges.
Cyber-security experts say the emails raise concerns about whether such sensitive information was adequately protected from hackers, given that personal accounts like Pence's are typically less secure than government email accounts. In fact, Pence's personal account was hacked last summer.
Politicians routinely have to eat their words. They're rarely shy about casting the first (and several follow-up) stones, even while their own sins run dark and deep. But a guy who has an email investigation to at least partially thank for his new position should be following an own-words-based diet for the next several months. If nothing else, it might (MIGHT!) push him towards the occasional second thought before hitting "tweet."
If Pence were intellectually honest, he'd replace Clinton's name with his own in the statement he made to "Meet the Press" last year.
“What’s evident from all of the revelations over the last several weeks is that
Hillary ClintonI operated in such a way to keephermy emails, and particularlyhermy interactions whileSecretary of State with the Clinton Foundationgovernor of Indiana, out of the public reach, out of public accountability,” Pence said. “And with regard to classified informationsheI either knew or should have known thatsheI was placing classified information in a way that exposed it to being hacked and being made available in the public domain even to enemies of this country.”
Pence's former office is releasing a small subset of his AOL emails. The Indy Star has obtained around 30 of them, but the governor's office says it's withholding a majority of them because they're either (a) deliberative documents or (b) too damn sensitive to be released publicly.
If the governor's office won't release them, perhaps the hackers will. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, but sometimes an outsider kicking in the door and throwing open the blinds is the only way to achieve the transparency the public deserves.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: classified info, emails, fbi, foia, hacked, hillary clinton, mike pence, private servers, public records
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you suggesting that they take the high road?
This is the sort of thing one might expect from children, not adults and certainly not those empowered with the reigns of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's reins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On point of fact...
I'll get my coat.
/pedant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On point of fact...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banalities
And that was my entire point. Banal, I know. I suspect the French are at the bottom of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is not even close to the same. Pence only did it in his state and didn't handle classified information. You know, it is not even illegal in contrast to Clinton etc.
In reality it is nothing special. Just common republican hypocricy. There is nothing newsworthy/controversial about it. It is just reality having a communist bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your tribal affiliation is showing. You are doing the same as them, attacking the other tribe for the same faults that your tribe also has, while pretending that your tribe does not do the same.
This is how party politics corrupts the system, as supporting the party is more important than ensuring that individual politicians are honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Republicans just don't seem to care about it and have a tendency to attack the media for bringing it up. Which is even more ironic when they are running on "values".
The democrats are often hypocritical in issues related to the judicial system and economy. Particularly since "liberals" in USA carry very few actual liberal ideals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The term "sensitive" does not imply "classified."
There is an official designation for sensitive material, in relation to the federal, not state government. However, it is not one of the classified statuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know, it is not even illegal in contrast to Clinton etc. Unless I'm misinformed, Clinton's wasn't illegal either... Or are you the late Justice Scalia in disguise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some seem to believe a lot of silly things, even those that are easily disproven with readily available evidence. Lots of people believing something does not make it true.
"it seems to coincide with certain FBI-investigations into a certain case"
Investigations that resulted in zero charges being filed and agreement that Clinton's actions were in line with the rules of the government at the time (which have since chaged), IIRC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From what I've seen of the current Republican administration, it's all of the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never attribute to malice what can sufficiently be explained by stupidity.
We are talking the Trump government here. Tell those guys that they can get rid of their shoe tying problems by using velcro, they'll order velcro shoelaces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
2nd attempt after "Held For Moderation". I can only assume that since was no "view your comment" link that you're censoring dissent as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
Good old Techdirt, the champion of "free speech", so long as it fits the ideology.
You have so few comments now that you should welcome even dissent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
2) Please look up and understand what "Free Speech" is. Because what it is not is the freedom to say whatever you want wherever you want without repercussion from everyone. Have you been arrested for making your comment? No? Well then your free speech hasn't been violated.
3) Dissent is okay. It is perfectly acceptable. It's even better when the person expressing it is willing to have a discussion over it. In fact, it seems like you are dissenting right now, and I can see your comment. It seems like everything is in order here. So what are you really complaining about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
You know, given that you have a problem with assuming...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
As you twice state, you are only assuming.
You write this as if it matters.
He should be concerned. He looks like a great, big asshole.
And he should be investigated with the same vigor as Hillary, so everyone else doesn't look like an asshole as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
So the first question: did he violate any laws? Anyone know for sure? Or is this all about assumption? I assume you're guilty, therefore you are....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
you're censoring dissent as usual.
Look cupcake, you've just shown yourself to be a special snow flake. My my my. Your words are so true and indisputable that "the moderators" simply can't allow them near our tender eye balls.
Yeah, right. Whatever.
Come back when you've grown the other brain cell, m'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
Now you have the same post up twice, and the second time is dumber. Great job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?
I can only assume you're a lying jackass that is too self-absorbed to realize anyone can easily spot that your ramblings are blatant lies, given the other dissent posts under virtually every article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, you are mostly correct....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tim, you are mostly correct....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apples / oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apples / oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apples / oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apples / oranges
This is important because we know state governors have a top secret clearance. Oh wait....
Actually, state governors are much more likely to have operational security information than anyone in the State department.
For instance, who is it that runs the national guard in each state? And why would State need operational security information?
Last, why would someone that got an email not properly marked "classified" be responsible for it? Why would they be responsible when it was marked classified retroactively? And why would they be responsible for receiving it if it was correctly marked? And if a crime was actually committed, why didn't the hyper partisan prosecutor, you know, prosecute? Or is it just another 15 or so million dollars for the 13th Benghazi "investigation", that also didn't prosecute?
Go Chant "Lock her up!" with Michael Thomas Flynn. Better be quick about it, because MTF might just find himself, er, "tied up". Along with his buddy Jeff Sessions. Because lying to the FBI and Congress are, you know, crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apples / oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As governor, what federal law did he break that would warrant an FBI investigation?
Sure it's hypocritical, but it's also not quite the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh please...
Politicians shouldn't use personal email accounts for public business, like Pence did, because that's like taking your office operating budget and putting in you personal bank account at Bank of America. Mixing business and personal is bad, and any oversight depends on the bank providing accurate records in order to determine what was personal and what was business.
But Hillary went much further. She put that budget in her personal bank account, at a bank she owned herself, and then was able to delete any records she wanted with zero oversight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please...
...in that a personal server limits access to only those you trust, while AOL's system administrators are countless and anonymous.
AOL also lets you delete emails with zero oversight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please...
AOL email servers aren't quite the same thing as a personal server
Have you seen the configurations from that "mail server in the basement"? Because they're posted (with minor redaction) on the Reddit thread. It wasn't horrible. It wasn't super secure, but then it's freakin' EMAIL. It can't be "secure" for practical discussion.
Have you done a security audit on AOL? Because they don't pass the gamma suites. They aren't designed to do so, by intent. Which AOL discloses, if you bother to read their SLA. And AOL credential security is completely unaudited, which "that server in the basement" most certainly was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please...
You're right.
If you run a personal server out of your house, it's much harder for someone to call up your ISP and socially engineer their way into your account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please...
"AOL email servers aren't quite the same thing as a personal server that was ran from out of your house."
Yeah, apparently AOL's servers are easier to hack...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And AOL? That is still alive? Who uses that?
Government employees who utilize accounts like this should be in jail, not because of the risk of hacking, but because the only reason to use them is to circumvent the FOIA. That is conspiracy I believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obfuscation
Hillary Clinton had no government account for her State Department e-mail, she had things set up to route State Department e-mail automatically to her personal e-mail server, committing felonies outlined in the federal records act in doing so.
The problem is not having personal accounts, it is using them for government business.
Now of course if someone in government has both personal and government accounts you can question if they ever use their personal account for government business, but you may never be able to find out for sure.
HOWEVER, when the freaking Secretary of State REFUSES to use a government e-mail AT ALL. Then you KNOW she was breaking the law (federal records act).
The grey area is if she also violated laws involving improper use of classified information by using her personal e-mail as her ONLY email for both her personal and government business. It is possible she may have never sent/recieved classified material to her personal account while Secretary of State. However its only possible if she were the most useless Secretary of State in recent history....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obfuscation
All of which adds up to "Hillary treated email just like Republicans."
Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice also used private accounts for classified emails. In fact Colin Powell advised Hillary to do so.
Then there's Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy, tens of millions of White House emails sent through private servers. Millions of them lost. With the same security issues.
And Jeb!, who as governor used his own server against the rules and as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants.
2016 Republican candidates Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal each have their own email scandals. Mitt Romney too.
And of course there's all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests, security be damned.
So Hillary is guilty of treating email just like Republicans before, during AND NOW since. But as always, IOKIYAR. (It's OK If You're A Republican.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignoring key facts to fuel the narrative.
Hillary stands completely on her own apart from everyone else in both parties and the various state governments in this regard.
She chose to take an extra level of responsibility and liability upon herself. It's a distinction that would make a difference for a lawyer or similar professional that handles other people's private data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignoring key facts to fuel the narrative.
Taking the extra level of responsibility (or extra effort to hide) can be argued to be better or worse than using basic commercial email services, but no one has made a good argument on that yet. That her system probably sucked does not illustrate an intent to leak classified info like a sieve, and it is still potentially more secure than any other commonly used email service. (Never mind that they rifle through your text to serve ads.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignoring key facts to fuel the narrative.
Incorrect.
The Bush II White House, Jeb! and several others used private servers.
Colin Powell and others using AOL is WORSE, not better. Only people you trust would administer your private server. You have no control over the many, many people administering AOL server, and no knowledge of who they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obfuscation
The problem is not having personal accounts, it is using them for government business.
From the article:
Emails released to IndyStar in response to a public records request show Pence communicated via his personal AOL account with top advisers on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe. In one email, Pence’s top state homeland security adviser relayed an update from the FBI regarding the arrests of several men on federal terror-related charges.
Hmmm...that sounds kinda governmenty to me.
Now of course if someone in government has both personal and government accounts you can question if they ever use their personal account for government business, but you may never be able to find out for sure.
Seems like we're finding out. But keep up the good deflection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obfuscation
Pence did this as state governor. Was he handling classified information? I doubt it. For that matter, did the federal records law apply to a state governor? IANAL, but I doubt it.
The top-level post labeled "Obfuscation" said that it was using private email for government business. That may be a problem, but I don't think it's *the* problem. Classified information is *the* problem.
Now, it's certainly a bad look. It may even be quite a bit of hypocrisy. And using private email for government business may still be a problem, even for a governor. But it is also true that the circumstances are different, different in ways that actually matter.
But by all means, claim that everyone who points that out is "deflecting".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
Pence did this as state governor.
I'm sure that's reassuring to the people of Indiana.
Was he handling classified information? I doubt it.
But you're not certain. An investigation would be needed to ferret that information out, amirite?
But it is also true that the circumstances are different, different in ways that actually matter.
Such as scale, as opposed to substance?
But by all means, claim that everyone who points that out is "deflecting".
When your defense of Pence relies on a comparison to Hillary, you can be sure I'll call it what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
Clearly you assume that the federal government has no contact with state governors.
Are you sure you've really worked with classified information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
You'd be wrong to doubt it. State governors handle all sorts of classified information. From the article above:
Jeb!, who as Florida governor used his own server against the rules, used it to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
...which can cover things that affect a state or happen within it, leading to the governor's involvement.
You know, like several things listed in the original story and repeated in the post you just responded to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
You appear inclined to believe no one but yourself and your conspiracy theorist friends.
Now that's fucking funny!!!
Marked as LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
...are you...under the impression that if classified information is shared with people who don't work for the federal government, then it no longer counts as classified?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
You didn't answer my question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obfuscation
So if it's not illegal, it's okay?
You know Clinton was never charged with anything, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
many of you are using words that you don't know the meaning of
The state level is much more akin to non-disclosure agreement level. Or not for public disclosure.
If a State Governor is getting classified written (Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) material it will be by special courier not through E-mail.
Just to clear up all the misconceptions
(This was MY job while in the Marines, to disseminate Classified material to those that needed to know)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: many of you are using words that you don't know the meaning of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: many of you are using words that you don't know the meaning of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: many of you are using words that you don't know the meaning of
So when the Indianapolis Star reports this:
does that mean "confidential" as in an official classification, or are we seeing "confidential" used in a colloquial sense here? Do we have any way of knowing that at this point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personal Emails
So, there is a HUGE difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Personal Emails
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]